Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 870 (MP)

GAGAN GASES LIMITED v. STATE OF M. P.

2008-07-15

VINEY MITTAL

body2008
ORDER Viney Mittal, J. - The petitioner - company is carrying on the business of LPG bottling plant. The State Government of Madhya Pradesh has issued a notification dated October 6, 1994, in exercise of powers under section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 whereby a power to grant exemption to the dealers, up to 250 per cent of the capital investment in fixed assets for a period of nine years from the commencement of commercial production, has been provided. The petitioner - company applied for and was granted the requisite exemption as per exemption certificate dated June 1, 1999. The capital investment made by the petitioner - company in fixed assets was taken as Rs. 147.47 lacs and exemption was granted for a period from March 7, 1995 till March 6, 2004. The petitioner - company has claimed that it had made some subsequent investments to the extent of Rs. 3,36,45,383 and therefore, under the notification in question, it was entitled to a further exemption of 250 per cent of the aforesaid invested amount also. Consequently, the petitioner - company applied for grant of further exemption through an application dated December 4, 1998. The request made by the petitioner - company was taken up for consideration by the State Level Committee, constituted for the said purpose and vide an order dated November 4, 1999, communicated to the petitioner - company on January 6, 2000 that the aforesaid request of the petitioner - company was rejected, by merely mentioning that in some other similar matter, a decision had been taken by the State Level Committee, not to grant such exemption. Neither the details of the said matter were given in the said communication nor the factual position, as submitted by the petitioner - company in its application, was taken into consideration. The communication dated January 6, 2000 issued by the State Level Committee has been appended as annexure P2 with the present petition. The petitioner - company approached the State Appellate Forum, by filing an appeal against the decision of the State Level Committee. In the appeal, the petitioner - company appears to have taken detailed grounds on facts and had also relied upon a large number of decisions, which are claimed to be in its favour. The petitioner - company approached the State Appellate Forum, by filing an appeal against the decision of the State Level Committee. In the appeal, the petitioner - company appears to have taken detailed grounds on facts and had also relied upon a large number of decisions, which are claimed to be in its favour. However, the appeal filed by the petitioner - company, has also been rejected by the State Appellate Forum vide order dated October 12, 2001. The order passed by the State Appellate Forum is appended as annexure P1 with the present petition. It is in these circumstances that the order of State Level Committee, annexure P2, as well as, the appellate order, annexure P1, are the subject-matter of challenge before this court. I have heard Shri S. C. Bagadiya, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Government counsel for the respondents and with their assistance, have also gone through the record of the case. A perusal of the order/communication, annexure P2, issued by the State Level Committee, shows that the order is totally a cryptic and non-speaking order. Although there is some mention of some other decision taken in identical circumstances, but no details of the said decision have been indicated. Various pleas raised by the petitioner - company on facts have also not been adverted to. Even the appellate order, annexure P1, is again a non-speaking order. It has merely been mentioned by the State Appellate Forum that the law cited on behalf of the petitioners had been taken into consideration, but the same was found to be not applicable. Even the observations made by the appellate forum do not meet the required standards of passing a speaking order. Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, the present petition is allowed. The orders, annexures P1 and P2, passed by the State Level Committee, as well as, the State Appellate Forum, are set aside. The matter is remitted to the State Level Committee - respondent No. 2, to consider the request made by the petitioner - company, in accordance with law, by passing a detailed and speaking order, within a period of four months from the date the parties put in their appearance. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the State Level Committee - respondent No. 2 on August 6, 2008. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the State Level Committee - respondent No. 2 on August 6, 2008. Within a period of two weeks from the date parties put in their appearance, the petitioners would be at liberty to file its written submissions, along with relevant documents appended thereto, if so desired. The present petition is disposed of accordingly. C.C. as per rules.